New York City is one of the most diverse cities in the world, with Times Square in its heart. Today, Times Square is considered the “Crossroads of the World” as people from all different countries worldwide, make it an essential destination to visit Time Square when in New York, and get their picture taken. To visitors, Times Square represents the whole of New York City. The bright lights and bubbly night life are a constant representation of “the city that never sleeps.” Times Square is a place that is overcrowded with families and tourists and adds greatly to the economic and financial success of New York City (Chakraborty 2016). People come to Times Square with their children to take in the exciting atmosphere or watch a broadway show. According to Chakraborty, there are more than 100,000 pedestrians on 42nd street on a given day, and 5,000 legitimate theatre seats in use (Chakraborty 2016).

However, Times Square was not always this way. Times Square once had a dangerous atmosphere that people would want to stay away from, and those taken seats were that of X-rated theaters. As we see in both readings, there was a drastic change from the old Times Square until it became this new and exciting Times Square. Before the government stepped in to revitalize Times Square in the 1980s, and the Walt Disney Company jump-started the revitalization, it was a sleazy, dangerous, and scary place to be. The streets were filled with crime and illegal activities. The small and congested area was poverty-ridden with barbarous living conditions which often led to crime and violence (Reichl 1999). Prostitution, sex shops, and X-rated theaters took over the streets. The low and filthy atmosphere in the area allowed the sex market, drug trade, and crime to thrive. Among other New Yorkers, it was known as “the wrong side of the tracks” (Chakraborty 2016). People stayed away from Times Square because of the danger that it held. Times Square was that place that everyone’s parents warned them to stay away from. And so people really did stay away until the government finally did something to “fix it”.

The readings prompt us to ask the question: which Times Square is better, the old or the new? Most people would resort to arguing that the new Times Square is better because it became more of a valid representation of what New York City actually is. Which is, the most important urban area culturally and economically.

But there is also an argument to be made that the new Times Square is not so different today than the old Times Square was. Of course it is not the same place, as over 30 years of a rebuilding project can show; however, there are some similarities in today’s Times Square that must be addressed. According to Chakraborty, the president of the Times Square Alliance, Tim Tompkins, addressed the issue of human traffic in Times Square . Years ago it came from the homeless people that were living on the streets of the congested poverty-ridden neighborhood, but recently it has come from the contrast between the amount of people that want to visit Times Square and the lack of space for those people. Tompkins said, “the problem used to be that you couldn’t get through Times Square without getting mugged or killed, and then by the 2000s, the problem was you couldn’t get through Times Square because it was so crowded” (Chakraborty 2016).

According to Gehl, Risom, and Day, this issue led to the pedestrianization of Times Square, the Plaza program, which focused on making the city more people-friendly. Ironically, this has led to an even bigger and current issue in Times Square of the “desnudas”. The pedestrianization of Times Square made it possible for body-painted topless women, also known as “desnudas”, to be “working” the streets. This issue haunts Times Square of its past, and actually prompted Mayor Bill Deblasio to announce a review of the entire project of pedestrianizing Times Square. Deblasio took extreme measures by calling his police chief’s to tear up pedestrian plazas in the city. He did this because “the affair has touched a nerve — a sense that somehow the plaza has made Times Square only more sleazy and vulgar than ever” (Day et al 2015). This incident comes back to the roots of Times Square. It proves that if appropriate measures are not taken, and the government stops to intervene in the continued “well-being” of Times Square, then the new Times Square (which is the current Times Square) won’t be much different than the old Times Square.

 

References:

Chakraborty D (2016) When Times Square was Sleazy http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/us/80s-times-square-then-and-now/ (last accessed 19 March 2017)

Day G, Gehl J, Risom J (2015) Times Square: The Naked Truth  http;//www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/opinion/times-square-the-naked-truth.html?_r=0 (last accessed 19 March 2017)

Delany S R (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York and London: New York University Press

Reichl A J (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. University Press of Kansas

The hourglass-shaped area that did not follow the city’s grid structure, more popularly known as Times Square today, has been considered the center of New York City since the early 20^th century. It was originally named Longacre Square after Long Acre in London for its similar structure and purpose. However, it was renamed in 1904 to Times Square after the newspaper company The New York Times saw potential in this landmark as a location for its headquarters. The gradual development of this space over time has shaped its wide range of appeal to different diversities as well as its great influence on the city. In fact, Times Square has been a reflection of the urban life of our country’s cities through the progression of our commerce, culture, and other aspects of life. The controversy lies upon whether the changes were beneficial or harmful to the city.

The Great White Way was a term used to refer to Times Square in the 1920s—describing the massive amount of white electric bulbs that lit up the theater and entertainment district. During this time, there were many subway lines, elevated train lines, surface lines, bus routes, as well as ferries that had stops or terminals near, if not, at Times Square. With the progression of transportation systems and other technologies, the economy was advancing, companies wanted to establish their business there and land value increased. However, as property owners and other people disliked and prohibited the nightlife culture, the decrease of theater led to an increase in movies and burlesque in the late 1920s. The Great Depression of the 1930s further led to the emergence of other forms of profit like dime museums, adult bookstores, and arcades. In the 1940s, the zoning amendments passed to get rid of outdoor public nuisances like arcades, galleries, and souvenir shops encouraged people to turn to other forms of interests such as sex and drugs. Alexander J. Reichl states in Reconstructing Times Square that the transition led to “the worst block in town” with an increase in illegal activities and undesirables. Loiters and hustlers were disruptive on the streets along with crime and violence. The WPA Guide to New York City stated that Times Square became “a district of glorified dancing girls and millionaire playboys”. Samuel R. Delany believed otherwise in Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. The area reflected a mix of different socioeconomic classes and the variety of street contact felt “nostalgic.” He mentioned Jane Jacobs’s idea of how human traffic and contact promoted through street-level business and diversity decreases crime and violence.

The change from the 1980s to the late 1990s resulted from campaigns hoping to clear up the “slum-like atmosphere”. There was a shift from undesirable activities to more family-related entertainment. Reichl discusses the joining of large entertainment companies like Walt Disney, American Multi-Cinemas, and Madame Tussaud’s of London to Times Square. Many believed Disney symbolized the “conquest of Forty-second street by the forces of good over evil.” As urban entertainment, public relations, and tourism expanded, hotels and other structures were built. Many saw the transition of the “Dangerous Deuce” to a “Disney Deuceland” as beneficial to Times Square, the city, and other cities. Delany argued that the purpose of the “New Times Square” was for land values than moral value. For instance, it did not seek gender equality, racial diversity, support for the arts, or reducing sex and drug activity. He introduced the topic of developers earning profit from demolishing and renovating old buildings. Construction of infrastructures was promoted even if they may be of no use. The New Times Square offers less economic diversity in terms of the variety of businesses. Another perspective from Eric Goldwyn in his article “How ‘People-Centered’ Design Made Times Square the Place to be on New Years Eve” is that Times Square was a highly-dense place, but the space was used efficiently to include all its visitors. The area has been “a site of constant invention and reinvention.” With every new issue that arose, Times Square was remade and adapted to another place most ideal to everyone. Goldwyn stressed the importance of the activity taken place at public spaces, concluding that “the street is the river of life for the city.” People come to places like Times Square to be part of it, not to escape it.

The Times Square Alliance was founded in 1992 as the Times Square Business Improvement District to improve Times Square not simply by increasing public safety and sanitation services, but by promoting entertainment, culture, and urban life. This voluntary board helped shape Times Square to fit the needs of the locals and to encourage economic development. When it comes to creating change, the alliance came up with twenty principles. These guidelines were created from learning from the changes of Times Square over time. The area as well as the city continues to change as we all have an impact on it and vice versa. From the Reichl and Delany’s opposing views on the transformation of Times Square over the century, we can argue both ways—good and bad. The past is all part of the history of the new Times Square. Neither ‘rebirth’ or ‘revanchism’ are fitting terms for the changes. Times Square was not necessarily revived from a period of decline to a time it began to flourish nor was it completely progressing in a complete opposite direction. As Delany stated, “cities function the way they do”; whatever happens, happens.

 

Works Cited

 

Delany S (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York University Press

Goldwyn, E (2014) How “People-Centered” Design Made Times Square the Place to be on New Years Eve. Next City: Inspiring Better Cities

Reichl A (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. University Press of Kansas

(2014) Twenty Principles for Creating Change. Times Square NYC

While reading Reichl’s Reconstructing Times Square and Delany’s Times Square Red, Times Square Blue, I found it hard to picture the older versions of Times Square and what kind of atmosphere they must have had. I am only familiar with what Reichl describes to be the “Disneyfied” version of Times Square, filled with families, tourists and mostly family-friendly entertainment. It’s crazy to think that this now family-friendly area of NYC was once known for drugs, sex shops and prostitution. A CNN article described this transition as, “We found people pushing strollers rather than pushing drugs on the street” (Chakraborty 2016).

Both readings bring up the question of whether the previous versions of Times Square were better than the newer, reconstructed version. I feel like it would be difficult to make such a decision because you are comparing two totally different atmospheres. Certain individuals, who would associate land value with moral value, would say that the sex industry along Times Square was ruining its value and making it “slum-like” and crime-ridden (Reichl 1999). People could also be argued that the sex industry brought in business for Times Square and attracted a large male population. We see that in the early attempts to morally cleanse the city, through the Prohibition, there was actually a negative impact on the theater industry and a change in the dynamic of Times Square (Reichl 1999). Delany mentions in his paper that he preferred the earlier version of the 42^nd Street area stating, “My personal life as a New Yorker was a lot more pleasant from, say, 1980 to 1992 than it has been, after a three-year transition period, from 1995 to now.” One of his main reasons for feeling this way was because of the increased opportunities for street contact during that time (Delany 1999). Even though one version may be more morally conservative than the other, that doesn’t necessarily translate it to being better. They are simply just catered to two different groups of people and different cultures.

When it comes to the issue of violence, it is generally perceived that the reconstructed version of Time Square was more safe due to the increase policing in the area (Chakraborty 2016). Delany looked at this in a different light and choose to downplay the violence of the old Time Square. In his paper, he argues “Many non-city residents still do not realize that their beloved small towns are, per capita, far more violent places than any big city” (Delany 1999). He also mentions the importance of knowing how to navigate the city in order to avoid being a victim of crime. I find it interesting to see the varying opinions people had on crime and violence in the city. It seems to be somewhat based on perception and whether certain people let things, like violence, alter their view of Times Square. This further goes to show why it would be hard to prefer one version over another. A general decrease in violence and crime rates is certainly a positive thing, but its probably not enough to ultimately determine that the reconstructed version of Times Square was better.

I would refrain from using the term revanchism to describe the transition between the old version of Times Square and the new version of Times Square. The old version of Times Square, no matter how raunchy or immoral, still contributed to the culture of New York City and influenced its’ development. I don’t feel like it would be fair to consider the older versions of Times Square any less than than its’ current version. Instead, I would like to think that Time Square just changed its vibe over the years and was reborn to a different type of cultural center.

 

Works Cited:

Chakraborty D (2016) When Times Square was Sleazy http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/us/80s-times-square-then-and-now/ (last accessed 16 March 2017)

Delany S R (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York and London: New York University Press

Reichl A J (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. University Press of Kansas

New York is a diverse place with people from all around the world and from all walks of life.  Some people consider it an example of the immigrant salad bowl theory or they may even dare to say it exemplifies a melting pot.  They look at New York as a place that welcomes people who are different.  Perhaps this idea can even be perceivably true by glancing through New York City’s “center”- Times Square.  However, what is seen is just a perception, it is not reality.

Times Square has been the focus of redevelopment in multiple occasions.  A lot of time and effort has been invested and there has been a strong insistence on the redevelopment of this one portion of the city.  Why? The reason behind this, in my opinion, is that New York City wants to have a good image.  When tourists say they want to come visit New York City very often they are not talking about Queens or the Bronx but rather New York City, even more specifically Times Square.  Therefore, by making Times Square an appealing place you create an image and a good appearance for New York City.   For example, in 2010 with the construction of the glassy 40 story tower Times Square’s luxurious appearance was even more heightened.  The redevelopment as described by Charles V. Bagli in his article “After 30 Years, Times Square Rebirth Is Complete, was looked as a triumph against all odds and an example of success through perseverance.  A success that finally led to the creation of the great glamourous Times Square people think of today.  Thus, in the words of Jimmy Glenn,” Everybody loves Times Square now”.  By creating this great reputation for Times Square, the entire New York City is considered great by association and therefore, is held higher in a global scale.

Why does everyone love Times Square, now? Is it because of the change of demographic or “moral value” of the area.  Although Times Square seems to be full of diverse people it is not essentially built to accommodate all people or rather the cultural values of all people.  Essentially it’s history exemplifies the clash of cultural values and the inability for different cultural values to be embraced and to manifest themselves jointly.

In New York City not everyone’s cultural values are encouraged.  The cultural values that are supported are those that produce capital or can be commoditized or the cultural values that are exercised by people with capital.  This dynamic, further emphasizing the constant battle between who’s opinion is valued. Who is considered desirable in a community? The answer, supported heavily by the capitalist system which this city is based on, is: those who can afford it.

This system allows for those who can afford a good education to get a good education.  It allows for those who can afford to live in a greener or safer community to move to a greener or safe community.  It allows for those who have always afforded to be at the top to stay at the top while others are given this false hope in upward mobility to hold on to.  This system has allowed for this great disparity between classes to occur thus pushing groups of people farther and farther apart.  Therefore, this diverse city has become a city of segregation and dis-unification.

However, although this is a result of the capitalist ideals I don’t think that was the intention.  I think there could be a city in which we still have capitalist ideals that promote incentive but that does not have such great gaps in education, income, and social value.  However, I think the only way these gaps can be closed is if people start to diversify and not minimize each others cultural values but allow these cultural values to live in harmony.  This will allow the destruction of false perceptions that people have of one another and for the unmasking of a politicized environment where people build a fancy building to hide the root of the problems and to leave them unaddressed.  By allowing the true unification of the city we will stop living in a city that is living in a façade of beauty, luxury, and diversity under which lies segregation, inequality, and disservice.

 

Additional Works Cited:

Bagli C (2010) After 30 Years, Times Squares Rebirth is Complete. After 30 Years, a Rebirth Is Complete pA17

It’s crazy how different an area like Times Square, originally Longacre Square, is today than what it was a century ago. The once poverty-stricken, crime-filled, prostitute packed Times Square was changed drastically into the family friendly Time Square of today.  By 1960, the New York Times had called the block on 42nd street between 7th and 8th avenues “the worst block in town” (Reichl 1999). In 1984, there were 2,300 crimes on the block, with 20% of them being serious felonies (Carlson 2010). What made the scene shift from crime and prostitution to a family-friendly environment that tourists from all over the world cherish?

Reichl made me aware of the public policy decisions that set this atmosphere shift. Planned by a public commission in 1901, the city announced that construction would begin for the city’s first subway line, making 42nd street the central to the project. Stressing the importance and unified approach for the subway, public and private sectors worked together on this project for a variety of both of their economic interests. Wealthy people moved farther uptown to newly constructed respectable neighborhoods were built in response to increased economic growth. Reichl defined suburbanization as “the migration of wealthier residents to less developed areas outside the central city” which sounds to me a lot like gentrification. Affluent people moving into a neighborhood and driving up the prices there. Yes, many people weren’t living uptown and it was mostly abandoned or rebuilt for manufacturing. By 1890, Times Square was no longer “uptown.”

Because Times Square has the largest concentration of advertising space in the world,  it became the became a stage for commercial culture and not just the entertainment district. As a result of the Idustrial Revolution and increased production of goods, Times Square tourism increased which foreshadowed the tourist-filled Times Square of today. On becoming more family friendly, Disney began presenting live stage versions of its movies in 1992 in the New Amsterdam Theater. Ideas that good would triumph evil came with the presence of Disney and symbolizing a new popular entertainment shift of the neighborhood. Over the next few years, Disney bought the New Amsterdam Theater and brought companies with similar ideals to work alongside them. From puttin on Beauty and the Beast to now Phantom of the Opera, the New Amsterdam Theater greatly impacted the vibe of the block. The theater went from an office and a nightclub to the home of so many feel-good shows. Disney renovated the theater and decided to build a hotel, entertainment  and retail complex in 1995 (Kennedy 1995), known today as E-Walk with movie theaters, Madame Tussaud’s and Ripley’s: Believe It or Not, among other family friendly attractions.

To answer the prompt of the topic, the Revanchist movement came to be characterized by hatred, bitterness that comes with loss, and a loathing of modernity, dedicated to stopping the forward flow of progress. Rebirth, however,  has more of a definition of starting to flourish or increase after a decline. Times Square was skewed towards rebirth because progress and modernity increased in the area in the last century. The effects of the subway and of Disney in the neighborhood greatly impacted the neighborhood in the spirit of rebirth and revival. A place rampant with crime and prostitution became a tourist destination filled with Mickey Mouse and visiting families.

 

Reichl, A  (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development

Carlson, J (2010) Flashback: Times Square, 1986 Gothamist http://gothamist.com/2010/11/08/flashback_times_square_1986.php#photo-1 (Last Accessed March 13, 2017.)

Tucker, J. A. (2016) The New Revanchism: The Theme of Politics Today. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/the-new-revanchism-the-theme-of-politics-today/ (Last Accessed March 13, 2017.)

Kennedy, S G (1995). “Disney and Developer Are Chosen To Build 42d Street Hotel Complex”. New York Times. p. B2. Last Accessed March 13, 2017.

 

Compared to the city that Robert Moses depicted, reconstructed and modernized in large scales, the city Jane Jacobs described, to me, has more sense of community and friendliness. In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” Jacobs presented her idea about the relationship between the city and its people, “give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially” (Jacobs, 1931, p.14). Her belief, that the formation of a great city should be spontaneous and the residents in the city should be part of developing progress, is very different from that of Robert Moses. She argued that the city and its people should mingle together and the city should be structured to improve the quality of life for its residents.

During Robert Moses’ era, the city went under many construction programs supported by the government. Residents were convinced that these programs would improve the quality of life of working people and solve the problem of unemployment. In fact, neighborhoods reconstructed did not perform better, instead went downhill faster (Jacobs, 1931, p.6). To Jacobs, theses programs led by Robert Moses seem to care about the apparent of the city, how it is present to people, more than the actual function of the city. In the introduction of her book, Jacobs pointed out the difference in the life of North End during her two visits, which supports her point that the city is able to adapt and generate itself without construction programs that Robert Moses promote. Additionally, the city undergoes the regeneration by its residents would function in a way that benefit its people the most. The community in North End is similar to the city that Jane Jacobs  described in chapter 7,  “The generator of diversity,” of her book.

Jane Jacobs believed a successful city should be diverse, in both physical structure and population. Population diversity will bring in different types of business due to various needs of people. Once a business succeed in the neighborhood, it would attract their competitors. As the number of different types of store increases, more individuals would be attracted to the community due to the convenience it provides. Following this cycle, the city will develop both financially and culturally and became the city that  Savitch described in his article, “What Makes A City Great? An American Perspective.” which contains “the 4C of greatness.” New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles were listed to be four cities that presents “great city,” because them contain “4C,” which are currency, cosmopolitanism, concentration and Charisma (Savitch, 2010).

The ideal way of how a city should develop according to Jane Jacobs will lead the city to obtain the “4C” that Savitch discussed in his article. However, once the city becomes “successful,” would the same group of residents benefit from the convenience that the city provides? As more people move into the neighborhoods where parks, schools, stores and residential buildings mingle, the price of real estate will eventually rise, leading to unaffordable housing for low-income class and working class. Additionally, increase number of stores will lead to competition and forced small stores that are not able to keep up with the competition to shut down. In this case, how would the city that Jane Jacobs promotes remain diverse socially?

I agree with Jane Jacobs that residents have the power to shape the city, and what I would call “the resident-centered community” works best for both the financial and social development of the city. However, I think the residents’ ability to keep the city functioning in the same order is questionable. The mutual relationship between the city and its residents will remain, but the city will change as more people arrived and new ideas created.

 

Work Cited:

Jacobs, J. (1961). Introduction. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 2-25). New York: Vintage Books.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The generators of diversity. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 143-151). New York: Vintage Books.

Savitch. H.V. (2010). What makes a city great? An American perspective https://www.planetizen.com/node/46776 (last accessed 3 March 2017)

In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs writes what she considers “an attack on current city planning and rebuilding” (1961). In her Introduction Jacobs specifically focuses on the ideas that led to the creation of modern concepts of city planning. Jacobs believes that all of the ideas derived from previous planners such as Ebenezer Howard and his Garden City, are deeply flawed in that they promote a city planning system which is only harmful for the city. Moreover, Jacob also argues that current city planners who were influenced by previous ones often do not understand the city and the way in which its parts play an essential role in its success and diversity. Jacobs argues that those who adventure themselves in the field of city planning are so focused on the knowledge they attained through years of learning that they do not really see the city for what it is and instead the see the city for how they think it ought to work and what would be good for the people (Jacobs, 1961, p. 8). In order to make this point more explicit Jacob’s refers to her friend in Boston as a perfect example. “My friend’s instincts told him the North End was a good place, and his social statistics confirmed it. But everything he had learned as a physical planner about what is good for people and good for city neighborhoods, everything that made him an expert, told him the North End had to be a bad place” (Jacobs, 1931, p.10-11).

In Chapter 7 titled “The generators of diversity,” Jacobs describes the type of cities which city planners should focus in generating. In this chapter she argues for diverse cities, which serve various purposes instead of one. She believes that cities which lack a mixture of uses are monotonous, while those who have lots of diversity are capable of generating more diversity. In this chapter, Jacobs presents her formula for the creation of successful diverse cities. In order to generate a diverse city, four conditions must be present: 1. The city must serve more than one function 2. Street blocks should be short 3. There must a mixture of old and new buildings and 4. there should be a dense concentration of people (Jacobs, 1931, p.150-151). Jacobs believes that a diverse city would not be possible if any one of these conditions was missing.

Through, reading both excerpts of Jacobs’ work, my attention was directed to her introduction where she writes about city rebuilding. Here she discusses how city planners have used great quantities of money to redevelop the city, but in doing so they have adopted a plan in which they take out all that its old or whatever they deem obstructive. That moto of out with the old and in with the new, she argues, has had negative effects on both the city and its people. She writes “the economic rationale of current city rebuilding is a hoax… the means to planned city rebuilding are as deplorable as the ends” (Jacobs, 1931, p 5), and she is right. The simple demolition of “slums” or of old neighborhoods do not solve the problem; they instead generate even bigger problems. Jacobs’ point of view is shared with Roberta Brandes Gratz. In her work, Downsizing Large Cities Is Harmful, Gratzn (2011) discusses demolition of abandoned buildings and how these are ineffective: “When no productive policy exists, demolition is the easiest way to look like the problem is being addressed…But demolishing buildings does not solve social problems. It just displaces them to another locale” (Gratz 2011). Instead of tearing down, she argues, it would be best to allow these old neighborhoods to regenerate themselves. The best way for this “regeneration” to occur can be best achieved through local movements such as grassroots movements, which can try to salvage these locations and give them a new purpose. Gratz concludes by saying that “organic urban neighborhoods are self-generated, not developer-built,” thus we should not focus too much on redeveloping everything from top to bottom but should instead look for other ways in which we could reuse the existing infrastructure for solving problems such as housing shortage. Gratz argument relates to that of Jacobs in that she too believes in the preservation of current infrastructure, and in the rehabilitation of old neighborhoods rather than on their destruction.

Gratz, R. B. (2011). Downsizing Large Cities Is Harmful. In R. Espejo (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Urban America. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Next American City, 2007, Spring) Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.queens.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/apps/doc/EJ3010399254/OVIC?u=cuny_queens&xid=e5159b55

Jacobs, Jane (1961). “Introduction” The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage,

Jacobs, Jane (1961). “The Generators of Diversity.” The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage,

 

Jane Jacobs in “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” argues that the current state of cities is deplorable and that something needs to be done. Jacobs attributes this fault to urban planners who have ignored certain facts and realities of urban life, and were influenced by towns, suburbs, and dream cities instead of actual cities. Jacobs condemns urban planners for mistakenly believing that superficial makeovers are the cure for all the cities ailments.

Interestingly enough, Mumford, a Decentrist which Jacob condemns, also criticizes urban planners for not realizing that city problems can’t just be fixed by “merely building sanitary tenements or straightening out and widening irregular streets” (1937). However, while Jacobs and Mumford agree that there is a problem, they disagree on what to do about it. Mumford favors a “polynucleated city” in which there are groups of evenly spaced and sized communities with completely planned out resources and with limitations to size and density (1937). He claims his plan would strengthen cities, however, Jacobs seems to think it would undermine the economy of cities and kill them, and I agree. First, who decides who gets to live in these ‘new and improved’ cities and how would they decide that? What’s the criteria for who gets to live there? Where do they draw the lines? It seems to me that he’s pressing for gentrification and for marginalizing the poor. Also, how would he decide which businesses stay in his planned out resources? His rigid plan doesn’t appear to allow for economic growth and seems to favor monopolistic companies while kicking out smaller businesses. Additionally, today’s population is growing rapidly and half the world lives in cities (and the amount is expected to increase); how does he plan to accommodate the ever-growing population in his evenly dispersed and limited-in-size communities? Again I worry that this will only benefit the privileged, while the poor will suffer in increasingly cramped and impoverished areas.

On the other hand, Jacobs likes dense cities and sees the value in the orderly disorder, however, I believe that her vision isn’t safe from gentrification either. In fact, I believe that she’s part of the problem. I believe there are two steps to the gentrification process: the first step is when long-time residents and owners begin to change a neighborhood, and then newcomers come in and complete the transformation. For instance, when Jacobs first visited the North End it was overcrowded and poor, but the next time she came, she writes, it was completely changed and full of live and vibrancy due to the efforts of its residents. This is the first stage of gentrification in which the people living there try to better their situations, and Jacobs applauds this. She also writes, however, how the families in the tenements have “uncrowded themselves” by combining apartments into larger ones, but how exactly did they magically uncrowd themselves? Where did the previous tenants go? Here we see the beginnings of original residents being pushed out of their communities. Then, according to Dumanoski, young people began to move in and the North End became an interesting and desirable place to live, and suddenly rents were increasing, condominiums were being built, and, as Dumanoski writes, “there will be a push for ‘Italian culture,’ but it will be a plastic Italian culture” (1979). Indeed, today the North End is only about 3% Italian, while its history and symbols have been reduced to mere commodities to consume for entertainment (Seligson 2016). In the place of small mom-and-pop shops are pricey boutiques and bakeries that sell cannolis (Seligson 2016).

Jacobs writes that “the visitors sniff out where something vigorous exists already, and come to share it, thereby further supporting it,” but I disagree. These newcomers or “urban pioneers” (like Jacobs – a middle class out-of-towner who moved to Greenwich Village most probably for the low rents and it’s charming bohemian atmosphere) in their search for and appreciation of inner-city “authenticity” and “diversity” actually incorporate those very locations back into the middle class mainstream, leaving behind the original residents that made it so. Further, I don’t think Jacobs actually cares about diversity in terms of race. For instance, Halle points out that Jacobs praised Midtown for its diversity in terms of its “high rise office buildings, a thriving entertainment industry…and some tall residential buildings along with smaller structures too,” without even seemingly caring about the fact that all this contributed to gentrification in the area (2006). The revitalization of Times Square, for example, has homogenized the surrounding areas and pushed out lower-income residents. Also, it seems that she wasn’t too keen on integration (like Moses), since, according to Halle, she fought against having a high-rise public housing project in the Village, even though that would’ve definitely improved the area’s diversity (2006).

Which leads me to the question of can you improve an area without it leading to gentrification. Efforts have been made in Harlem, for example, to help its residents who lived there, but now Harlem, an area that has been redlined and discriminated against for years, has “urban pioneers,” trendy restaurants, high-end housing, and is no longer majority black (Roberts 2010). Similarly, great efforts were taken by residents in Brownsville to improve their neighborhood, however, now residents are trying to combat the second stage of gentrification that is occurring in surrounding neighborhoods such as Bushwick, Bed-Stuy, and Crown Heights (Pope-Sussman 2016). Also, the decades-long trend of poverty being higher in cities is now reversing; nowadays, suburban poverty levels are actually higher than urban levels as more and more of the urban poor are being pushed out of their neighborhoods (Edsall 2015). So do you think it’s possible to help a neighborhood in need without it leading to the exodus of those very residents? Because, from where I’m standing, I, unfortunately, don’t think it is.

Readings:

Halle, D. (2006). Who wears Jane Jacobs’s mantle in today’s New York City? City and Community, 5(3), 237-241.

Jacobs, J. (1961). Introduction. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 2-25). New York: Vintage Books.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The generators of diversity. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 143-151). New York: Vintage Books.

Additional Works Used:

Dumanoski, D. (1979) Boston’s Italian North End. American Preservation Magazine. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://northendwaterfront.com/2017/01/revisiting-north-end-gentrification-1979-american-preservation-magazine/

Edsall, T. B. (2015) The Gentrification Effect. The New York Times. Retrieved March 03, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/opinion/the-gentrification-effect.html

Mumford, L. (1937) What is a city? Architectural Record, pp. 92-96. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from https://deensharp.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mumford-what-is-a-city_.pdf

Pope-Sussman, R. (2016) ‘Best of Brownsville’ street kiosk triggers local gentrification fears. Retrieved March 03, 2017, from http://gothamist.com/2016/09/16/brownsville_gentrification_fear.php

Roberts, S. (2010) No longer majority black, Harlem is in transition. The New York Times. Retrieved March 03, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

Seligson, S. (2016, July 12). Is the North End Still Italian? Retrieved March 03, 2017, from https://www.bu.edu/today/2016/north-end-boston/

In Jane Jacobs’ The Life and Death of Great American Cities, she presents her purpose early in the text that it is to attack and critically analyze city planning and how its been taught to be used. Unlike the goal of planners and city constructors, her focus is on the social needs of the community rather than the infrastructure and physical complexes. She found the “need of cities for an intricate diversity of uses that give support economically and socially”. Recognition that “components of this diversity must supplement each other” creates a network and value between what the city is and what it has. The people, their relationships, the economy and wellbeing of the city, all depend on each other to work and use the city in different ways.

One important concept Jacobs’ discussed was the failures of using the function of the city to the citizens in planning its structure. She recognized that the failures of urban planning could not be resolved by the ideal notion that a larger proposal of money/grants will bring more opportunity. “Rebuilding can promote social and economic vitality in cities” however she argues that the accomplishments often time preceded a degradation to a state worse than before. Jacobs in 1961 would be horrified with the philosophy of city planning now. It is agreeable that the concerns and need of the citizens must be prioritized to the suggestions by private corporations or state/federal governments. Citizens of a community should be given a budget to decide which issue requires immediate attention, be it education, roads construction, infrastructure, entertainment centers, etc. However it id wrong to deem an inner-city area illegible for assistance because of the existence of a park or field. “People don’t care if it works but have a quick and easy impression.” The method to find how a city “ought to look” would ignore the issues the citizens find in their slum or community. There comes an issue then on criteria, Morningside Heights has a park so it was considered a “good neighborhood” that is until it was becoming a slum in the 1950s which then identified it as a city of need since its state was harming the appearance and business of the institutions it held. How would we decide the threshold to label a city as “in need”? Is there a number or level of economic activity, wellness or other factor that would distinguish these neighborhoods? Is it right to leave it in the hands of the residents or can they not be trusted to make a right decision on the behalf of their population? A tenet in East Harlem felt her community embodied the quote, “all that glitters is not gold.” She said that the ignorance and incompetence to see their need was worse than the state her town was before it was covered by trees and building complexes.

About 30 years after Jacobs announced these claims, in 1994 Nicholas Lemann confirmed that America’s major problem is the inner-cities and slums. It seems Lemann found that programs geared to clean slums were introduced after the citizens presented their disgust of city conditions and rioted, like it worked in Los Angeles. In this way citizens are taking the initiative to familiarize the government with their issues. The Empowerment Zones program would pick 6 large cities to receive tax breaks, aid and benefits, however the problem arises again “who is to select and measure the need of a city?”. Would it truly benefit the citizens with the label “greater good”? The representative of New York Charles B. Rangel showed favor towards this program but came to terms that “it may not work for the rest of the nation”. Handing the responsibility to individual populations in various cities may ensure that each area is catered to its needs and not provided with a “one size fits all” plan which often proves to be the downfall of proposals of construction. “Social uplift”, defined as education counseling, improvement of housing stock and crime control, was perceived as demeaning to those of lower income and as too expensive to the wealthy. What the city needs should be decided by that city and those who would have to deal with the consequences or rejoice in its success.

Lemann Nicholas (1994) The Myth of Community Development. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/09/magazine/the-myth-of-community-development.html?pagewanted=1 (last accessed 1 March 2017)

Jacobs Jane (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

Robert Moses is the man that can be credited with much of the infrastructure that surrounds New York. Coming from a background in New York politics, Moses later became involved with urban planning. Having the political foundation and connections with the governor of New York helped Robert Moses achieve all that he did and gave him the power and standing to have the influence on New York’s construction.

During the years of 1946-1954, New York experienced the greatest amount of construction and public building that the city ever had. Throughout this time, no structure was built without the approval of Robert Moses himself. The most amazing part of this all was that Moses wielded such power without having an actual political position. There is no doubt hat Moses achieved great things and contributed to the development of the city, but how he went about this was a controversial matter.

One of the biggest structures that Moses implemented in the city, was the Cross Bronx Expressway. Thought he expressway did increase the ability to travel to different parts of the city easily, Moses planned it to bisect the Bronx in half. The effect that this had on the population was the segregating of the upper and lower classes, as the expressway displaced close to 5,000 families and forced the upper and middle classes to migrate north, while the lower income families were displaced to the Southern Bronx (Ballon and Jackson 2007).

Overall, Moses contributed about 416 miles of parkways to New York. What this meant for New Yorkers though, is that transportation was now not equally available to all. Only those upper class members who had cars would be able to benefit from the new roads. A more efficient system which would have enhanced the ideals of New York would have been to include more subway systems and increase access to all citizens instead of just catering to the upper class.

During Moses’ extensive building he faced much opposition. Specifically, Jane Jacobs was a woman who overtly set out to maintain the standards of New York and be inclusive of all despite all of the construction. As written in the article Jane Jacobs vs. Robert Moses, battle of New York’s urban titans she eventually was able to overcome the influence that Moses had on the development of New York.  “Over the past 40 years, the rebirth of Lower Manhattan from Chelsea to Tribeca, of northern Brooklyn, of Astoria and Long Island City in Queens, has taken place without razing a single building in the name of ‘urban renewal’, or shooing away a single citizen through ‘eminent domain’” (Paletta 2016).

The question asked was whether Robert Moses is to be considered a master builder, or an evil genius. To me, this is not a matter of either or. Both of this descriptions can be used accurately to describe Moses, and in fact I believe that they coincide. In order to attain stature and to achieve the levels of power and influence that Moses had, it definitely required some careful planning. Moses made sure to create connections and alliances in all areas such as labor unions, park workers, and banks in order to have the support and backup that he would need to become the Master Builder that he was.

 

 

Ballon H and Jackson K (2007) Robert Moses and the Transformation of New York (pp 65-66) W.W. Norton & Company

Paletta, Anthony . “Story of cities #32: Jane Jacobs v Robert Moses, battle of New York’s urban titans.” The story of cities. Guardian News and Media, 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.